Michigan Law Allows Bullying For Religious Reason

[debrand]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/0 ... 81980.html

While reading an article on Huffingtonpost about a teacher bullying a special needs student, I came across this statement.

After a law allowing verbal bullying in schools by teachers and students as long as it was backed by religious beliefs or "strong moral convictions" was passed in the Michigan state Senate, lawmakers in the house have responded to a wave of controversy and vowed to make changes that "provide protection to all students."

This statement is troubling. Does anyone know why such a law would pass? What if someone has a strong moral conviction that another race is inferior. Can they verbally abuse a member of that race?

[Alecto]

This is an interesting analysis by a First Amendment Scholar: http://michiganmessenger.com/53792/firs ... ly-written

“The bill does not prohibit bullying. It does not apply to students. It does not require any student to do anything or to refrain from doing anything. It requires school boards to adopt anti-bullying policies,†Douglas Laycock, Robert E. Scott Distinguished Professor of Law at the University of Virginia Law School. “It does not require the school boards to include language protecting First Amendment rights. In fact, subsection 8 appears to be entirely meaningless. It says that this section does not abridge rights under the First Amendment (which it could not do even if it tried), and this section does not prohibit statements of religious belief or moral conviction. But this section doesn’t prohibit any other statements either. It doesn’t prohibit bullying statements.â€

SB 137 was passed last week by the GOP-controlled Senate, on a party line vote of 26-11, with Democrats voting no. Republicans inserted language which would allow statements based on sincerely held religious beliefs or moral convictions. That language, advocates said, was a “license to bully,†and the bill received national press as a result.

Laycock said the legislation was “badly drafted.â€

“I hope the schools that implement this do a better job of drafting than the legislature did. It took this law professor 20 minutes to parse this prose; a third grader would have no chance,†he said. “So what they apparently meant to say is that the school policies that prohibit bullying should not violate the First Amendment and should not prohibit statements of religious belief or moral conviction. But they never actually say that.â€

[gardenvarietycitizen]

This is the first I'm hearing of it myself, but I'd suspect the extra language was passed with the idea of protecting people (teachers, etc) who might make comments against homosexuality. Seems there is a lot of fear among certain people that they are going to be persecuted for "innocently" letting fly with some "value judgments" in the course of their day to day teaching. "You're persecuting me by not letting me express my religious beliefs." Then someone tacks on "...or strong moral convictions" to try and make an end run around any possible "violation of church and state separation" arguments.

The reason I suspect this is because I see that rhetoric all the time around me locally in letters to the editor and the rest, though thankfully as far as I know we don't have any laws like that one. Every time discussion of bullying happens, this comes up.

As I said in other thread though, personally I don't think that religious beliefs should be given any greater weight or any greater "pass" than secular beliefs when it comes to things (including derogatory language and preaching) involving other people. You shouldn't get an exemption to say "well, you can't blame me for my bigotry because I have no choice, I'm doing what God commands me to."

[contrary]

I live in Michigan, and i'm sickened by this law. It's absurd.

eta: the father of the boy that the law is named for is also speaking out LOUDLY about it. He says he is ashamed to have his son's name on it.

[Lala]

It only passed the Senate. It hasn't been made into law yet. They are going to re-word it and take out "for religious purposes".

[Austin]

Wouldn't the core of this be about teh gay? Because a lot of people think that since they believe that teh gay is evil (because of their religion), they can "share with the class" and not just being hateful.

[annalena]

Umm what? So if you have strong "moral beliefs", means you are "holier", you are allowed to bully others? Wtf?

[annalena]

Wouldn't the core of this be about teh gay? Because a lot of people think that since they believe that teh gay is evil (because of their religion), they can "share with the class" and not just being hateful.

Well I think they should be allowed to share their opinion anyway, even if is they do not approve of gay marriage / relationships.

But there's a vast difference between sharing an opinion, like, in a discussion in class and bullying.

[Austin]

Well I think they should be allowed to share their opinion anyway, even if is they do not approve of gay marriage / relationships.

But there's a vast difference between sharing an opinion, like, in a discussion in class and bullying.

Well, what exactly do you mean about sharing their opinion? Hetero kids have the right to go to school and not have who they are as people questioned for "religious reasons", so why should gay kids have to put up with that.

Ignorant people have opinions about blacks being inferior to whites, but they are not allowed to "share" those opinions in school. It would not be tolerated even in a class discussion and rightfully so. I don't see the difference.

[ElphabaGalinda]

Well, what exactly do you mean about sharing their opinion? Hetero kids have the right to go to school and not have who they are as people questioned for "religious reasons", so why should gay kids have to put up with that.

Ignorant people have opinions about blacks being inferior to whites, but they are not allowed to "share" those opinions in school. It would not be tolerated even in a class discussion and rightfully so. I don't see the difference.

This is definately about teh evil gays. So a gay kid can now walk into a classroom and hear all about how they're sick and wrong and evil and all that bs? Religion is no excuse for sharing that in a classroom. Isn't there a separation of church and state? Laws like this make it seem like there is not. It's the exact same thing as if someone's religion says it's okay to say in class how black people are evil deviants. Neither should be allowed.

Sorry if that's a bit incoherent. Things like this make me alternatively pissed, disgusted, and so so thankful for living in Canada.

[Effie]

Umm what? So if you have strong "moral beliefs", means you are "holier", you are allowed to bully others? Wtf?

Seriously wtf. Religious reason though, would that cover all religions? :roll:

[annalena]

Well, what exactly do you mean about sharing their opinion? Hetero kids have the right to go to school and not have who they are as people questioned for "religious reasons", so why should gay kids have to put up with that.

Ignorant people have opinions about blacks being inferior to whites, but they are not allowed to "share" those opinions in school. It would not be tolerated even in a class discussion and rightfully so. I don't see the difference.

Let me clarify that: I think someone needs to be allowed in sharing whatever their opinion is, I do not believe in thought censoring. Those kids ( and adults) need to be able to state their (even if messed up) opinion.

It goes without saying they still are to treat everyone with the same respect.

[Eponine]

What if I were an old school Mormon who believes that all non-white people are cursed, wicked, etc, and bullied kids based on that? Somehow I don't think that would fly under this law. It definitely seems to target homosexuality.

[antifundie]

I'm trying to think of a religion that would actually be ok with bullying...nope, can't think of one.

There's a HUGE difference between, say, having a civilized debate on gay marriage (as you might have in a high school or college classroom) and bullying. Helping students to voice their opinions respectfully is great--but I'd think you'd also have to teach kids that their opinions are one thing, but how they treat people shouldn't be based on opinion of their "lifestyle"--I mean, especially with homosexuality, they need to treat people with respect.

[gardenvarietycitizen]

I'm trying to think of a religion that would actually be ok with bullying...nope, can't think of one.

There's a HUGE difference between, say, having a civilized debate on gay marriage (as you might have in a high school or college classroom) and bullying. Helping students to voice their opinions respectfully is great--but I'd think you'd also have to teach kids that their opinions are one thing, but how they treat people shouldn't be based on opinion of their "lifestyle"--I mean, especially with homosexuality, they need to treat people with respect.

Ideally. 100% agreed.

At least in the debate around me, arguments that are very worried about potential anti-bullying rules usually take the form of people (often teachers, or parents arguing on their behalf) worried that the teacher is going to be hauled in on charges for saying in class that homosexuality is aberrant, or for "taking a stand" and refusing to portray gay relationships as any sort of normal if it comes up (say, in health class, or social studies for the younger grades, or whatever it is). Too much "respect" means approval, and God says they can't do that. Society is going to hell in a handbasket already because of too much approval.

Charges of "PC" are trotted out, and the argument really gets rolling. Some people firmly think same-sex relationships are wrong, full stop, period, and so it should be okay to criticize people openly for it just as they might criticize someone for other "bad behavior" - because to them, homosexuality is a choice, and so (again to them) it makes no sense for it to be a protected class. Bring up the "what about race?" and that's the first response you'll get.

It's another form of the "you must tolerate my intolerance" thing, coupled with a paranoia about government agents showing up to haul religious people away for be honest about Teh Trvth.

[annalena]

I'm trying to think of a religion that would actually be ok with bullying...nope, can't think of one.

There's a HUGE difference between, say, having a civilized debate on gay marriage (as you might have in a high school or college classroom) and bullying. Helping students to voice their opinions respectfully is great--but I'd think you'd also have to teach kids that their opinions are one thing, but how they treat people shouldn't be based on opinion of their "lifestyle"--I mean, especially with homosexuality, they need to treat people with respect.

Exactly.

[dawn9476]

Thankfully because of the major backlash this is getting, it looks like the bill will be changed and the religious exception part will be removed.

[dawn9476]

Wouldn't the core of this be about teh gay? Because a lot of people think that since they believe that teh gay is evil (because of their religion), they can "share with the class" and not just being hateful.

Apparently to conservatives, gay kids are the only kids that get bullied and anti-bullying laws only protect them. :roll:

[Austin]

Let me clarify that: I think someone needs to be allowed in sharing whatever their opinion is, I do not believe in thought censoring. Those kids ( and adults) need to be able to state their (even if messed up) opinion.

It goes without saying they still are to treat everyone with the same respect.

In a public school classroom, a student can think whatever they like, no matter how represensible. However, they do not get to say whatever they like. So no one is talking about trying to censor anyone's thoughts.

A statement made about another person's sexuality is inherently disrespectful. Why do they "need" to state their opinion?

[BlackHawk]

Ugh this bill annoys the shit outta me. I never knew Michigan was so fundie approved.

Matt's Safe School Law was only passed by the Senate of MI, yes, but that doesn't make it any less troubling.

A little BG... Matt Epling was a Freshman at a MI high school. He was bullied relentlessly, had food smashed on his head and in his face, was roughed up and yet nothing was done. He committed suicide July 16, 2002, it is believed it was over anti-gay bullying. In the aftermath of his suicide, one of his attackers received a year probation. Matt's father, Kevin, took up the charge to change the way things are handled in schools, thus the birth of Matt's Safe School Law.

The American Family Association of MI (AFA) has talked about how awesome this bill is. Quoting the AFA of MI president, Gary Glenn,

We’re pleased that the senate has passed an anti-bullying bill that will equally protect all children from all bullying for all reasons, based on their individual worth as human beings, not on being segregated into singled-out groups for special protection

Seriously, that is what he said. Also according to AFA of MI, anti bullying laws are part of the homosexual agenda. The exact statement is

a Trojan horse for the homosexual agenda

Yeah... I'm a little flabbergasted by that one.

As a very proud homo, the thought of keeping kids safe even being an issue is absurd to me. I was bullied, I was beaten up, I was kicked out of my home for being gay. It's not something that only happens occasionally, it's not something that people can turn around and look the other way over. It is a real problem.

Bullying for any reason is a real problem. ALL kids should be protected in a school environment, regardless of anything about them. The thumb suckers, the smelly kid in the corner, the proud Christian, the proud Homosexual... ALL OF THEM. You don't know their history, you don't know their story, you don't know what has made them the way they are... so why make fun of them for it?

The MI state senate needs to reevaluate their life if they think this is okay. It's really sad.

(Quote credit: http://michiganmessenger.com/53702/sena ... egislation (newspaper, not breaking link))